Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!pilot.njin.net!psuvax1!psuvm!NIHCU!RAF
From: RAF@NIHCU.BITNET (Roger Fajman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Subject: Format of linkfail tag
Message-ID: <NODMGT-L%90022720122278@BITNIC.BITNET>
Date: 28 Feb 90 01:06:00 GMT
Sender: Node Management Discussion <NODMGT-L@BITNIC>
Reply-To: Node Management Discussion <NODMGT-L@BITNIC>
Lines: 50
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM.BITNET Gateway

I'd like to point out that apparently BITNIC made a unilateral
decison to change the format of the linkfail tag to

      (real_name) userid@node (phone number)

instead of the traditional

      (firstname lastname) (fullphone#)

There was a reason that linkfail did not contain an email address:
it makes little sense to send email about a link that is down.

== Forwarded Mail ==

Received: from BITNIC.BITNET by NIHCU (Mailer) id 6887;
              Tue, 27 Feb 90  13:35:56 EST
Received: by BITNIC (Mailer R2.03B) id 6886; Tue, 27 Feb 90 13:40:40 EST
Date:         Tue, 27 Feb 90 13:38:46 EST
From:         Rodney Elin <UPD_INFO@BITNIC>
Subject:      Re:  Answers to your questions
To:           "Roger Fajman" <RAF@NIHCU>
In-Reply-To:  Your message of Fri, 16 Feb 90  19:14:24 EST

>> For your first question, the (people) format has always been the standard:
>>
>> (real_name) userid@node (phone number)
>>
>> The problem is that this has only been enforced since we implemented
>> the update server machine.
>
>That's not true.  The linkfail tag has always been different.  I quote
>from the old REQUIRED INFO file:
>
>:linkfail     60
>Person to be contacted in
>the event of a link failure ________________________________
>                   format: (firstname lastname) (fullphone#)
>
>I can send the complete document if you like.


You are correct.  Sorry if I confused you.
However, the CURRENT REQUIRED INFO1 linkfail tag has the

(real_name) userid@node (phone number)

format.

Rodney Elin
BITNIC